Topics

1. Joel Helfrich says:

   July 16, 2014 at 12:58 am

   Perhaps not “double jeopardy,” but some kind of “time loop” reminiscent of Groundhog Day.

   I like the plans for housing. Great idea/concept. The City should take the buildings by eminent domain (if the owner’s taxes, etc, are so far behind) and give to the neighborhood to implement the above plans. (I dislike the ability to drive through the parcel from Main to New York Street, however.)

2. Nate says:

   July 16, 2014 at 7:18 pm

   The last go round was the zoning hearing equivalent of a Kangaroo Court.

   At least this time Mr. Maye will get a fair opportunity to make his case.

   The case will, as it should, be decided on the merits.

   It is an important application with clear stakes.

   Let the chips fall where they may.

3. RochesterSubway.com says:

   July 16, 2014 at 7:33 pm

   When the verdict isn’t what you want it’s a Kangaroo Court?

4. 644 W Main st says:

   July 16, 2014 at 9:51 pm

   This plan will destroy my home. How would you like to step outside to see a concrete wall? How would you like to have an alley next to your property that hides drug deals and prostitution from the authorities but you get to listen to through your fence? How would anyone like to have a giant dumpyer compound next to their favorite chair in the back yard? How would anyone like to be surrounded on all sides by parking lot, traffic, noise, delivery tucks? How would you like to look out of your second floor windows to see a flat roof, and hear the commercial rooftop air handlers come on at whatever hour, or just look out all windows in general to see a concrete wall – this will destroy my home.

5. Matthew Denker says:

   July 17, 2014 at 12:58 am

   I like the idea of being able to drive through this lot. Indeed, Rochester has far too many “superblocks” and while Wentworth is not particularly far west, I think these plans would be improved further by just having a public right of way on the west side of the lot. The fourth house could then be transferred to the east side of the lot. I really do think this is an excellent plan even as is, and would be greatly interested in somehow seeing it come to fruition.

6. Joel Helfrich says:

   July 17, 2014 at 12:49 pm

   @644 West Main: Which plan? Maye’s plan or the one put forth on this blog?

   @Matthew Denker: Putting a street, essentially, where there is not currently a street is a mistake, I feel. It allows for accidents, extra pavement, increased heat island, etc…. Give the people on New York Street more yard space.

7. Nate says:

   July 17, 2014 at 9:48 pm

   Hey Mike, where in my comments did I say what verdict I wanted? Just talking about a fair shake. The arrogance is striking…..

8. 644 W Main st says:

   July 17, 2014 at 9:52 pm

   Joel, I meant maye’s plan. Maye’s plan would ruin my home. He spoke today at the zoning board hearing about how the tractor trailers would be pulling in for deliveries 3 times a day directly behind my yard – ewe ewe ewe. I would never be able to use my yard! There would be Mac trucks idling in it all day!
   Btw – we ran out of time. Hearing continues on Monday at 4:00. Rochester subway, you should post my site plan with the commentary!

9. 644 W Main st says:

   July 17, 2014 at 9:55 pm

   Nate, so tell us what verdict you hope for and why

10. RochesterSubway.com says:

    July 18, 2014 at 12:27 am

    “Nate” I’m asking you why you’re calling it a “kangaroo court.” The only reason I can think of would be you didn’t like the decision. Were you at that hearing?

11. Urban Explorer says:

    July 18, 2014 at 10:47 am

    @Joel Helfrich. Matt Denker is not suggesting to add pavement, just reconfigure what is proposed in the “anonymous” plan to create a better design. I agree with Matt, small blocks (or mid-block cut throughs) are key to walkable urbanism.

    Also, the term “accident” is a biased term. “Crash” or “collision” are less biased. Streets don’t cause crashes, vehicles do.

12. Urban Explorer says:

    July 18, 2014 at 10:50 am

    I’m also curious about the “arrogance” that Nate is referring to at the Zoning Board.

13. Joel Helfrich says:

    July 18, 2014 at 2:13 pm

    You are all bloody arrogant. I am so sick of it. May the humble inherit the Earth. But, seriously, Nate, where is the arrogance? I could come up with a million other words to describe the ways in which the City and its various committees operate, but not “arrogant.”

14. 644 W Main st says:

    July 18, 2014 at 9:06 pm

    Joel, what do you think should happen to the site?

15. Joel Helfrich says:

    July 20, 2014 at 1:03 am

    @644 W. Main St: Feel free to read my comments, numbered 1 and 6 above. I think that some kind of pocket neighborhood idea, like the one outlined in this post, would be perfect. You should work with the neighborhood to see if it can get the City to implement such a plan, with whatever help/idea/suggestions you might have. (I do not want the connecting driveway/street through the property for various reasons, however.)

16. Joel Helfrich says:

    July 20, 2014 at 1:17 am

    @Urban Explorer: I agree that mid-block streets can be useful and break up long stretches, but that is hardly a problem in this example. I am not sure that the distance between Jefferson Ave and Wentworth Street is long enough to warrant a cut-through. (Perhaps the cut-through would be better here: http://usa.streetsblog.org/index.php/2013/02/28/sprawl-madness-two-houses-share-backyard-separated-by-7-miles-of-roads/)

    Secondly, adding streets for the benefit of cars is hardly supportive of walkable communities. And given that humans, for the most part, cause “crashes,” it would seem as if we would want to limit the vehicle traffic through the property. Perhaps Bauer Alley could be lengthened instead — or just have access on New York Street and parking next to the church, but without the cut-through.

17. Joel Helfrich says:

    July 20, 2014 at 1:21 pm

    BTW, it looks as if a developer could fit a good number of additional houses along New York Street, if unused and vacant lots could be included in the plans.

18. 644 W Main st says:

    July 21, 2014 at 10:50 pm

    Joel, I saw what you wrote, I guess I’m just confused about why you think we are all arrogant when it seems like you agree with the housing proposal or at least something along those lines. I just want to clarify – nobody in this hood is opposed to a grocery store – it’s the breaking of multiple zoning laws that are there for a reason that we have a problem with. I – even though I would prefer to see the church rehabbed, do not feel the need to die on that hill – I’m more concerned about how that space is used after the fact. I don’t think that living nect to a commercial property necessarily has to be annoying, and I rely on the existing zoning laws to ensure that something appropriate goes there.

19. Joel Helfrich says:

    July 22, 2014 at 12:11 am

    @644 W. Main St: If you read again what I wrote, you will see that I am wholeheartedly and completely on your side. It is Nate who thinks that there is a level of arrogance in the case of developer Maye. I am still trying to learn what he meant by that comment.

20. 644 W Main st says:

    July 22, 2014 at 6:57 am

    Oh I beg your pardon. I have mixed you up! Well that
    Explains it and I guess I’d better be more careful when I’m reading on my little phone.

21. Urban Explorer says:

    July 24, 2014 at 10:29 am

    This is a kangaroo court:
    http://citypaper.net/article.php?Why-Philly-s-zoning-board-is-still-so-dysfunctional-20734

    Compared to Philadelphia (and Buffalo, which I’ve personally witnessed), Rochester’s ZBA is a paragon of objective professionalism. That is, it was until Monday evening, when it devolved into arguing amongst the members and baseless allegations of racism being flung about.

22. Jibreel Riley says:

    July 30, 2014 at 10:59 am

    What is going on with this building specially with the recent accusations of Family Dollar by Dollar Tree how many dollar stores does one inner city need, specially in a Upstate City like Rochester. The Northeast Cities, dollar stores pop up like locust however Upstate doesn’t exhibit the same growth. You’ll hate to see this building fall just to construct a dollar store that becomes a “while elephant” building once these stores go under and its only a matter of time when these stores do go under as they always do.

23. 644 W Main st says:

    July 30, 2014 at 9:02 pm

    The exciting conclusion (hopefully) coming on August 13th. Hearing continues at 9:00am.

24. Malcolm Kelley says:

    July 30, 2014 at 10:26 pm

    The church is in rough shape, admittedly. It is not anything, however, that cannot be fixed. My suggestion is that everyone begin to call the City — phone 311 — to complain about the dilapidated state of both properties at 660 West Main Street. The house is in particularly rough shape. Drive by, take a photo, and send it to this blog.

    I also notice from the online property information that Maye owes the City of Rochester $33,413.99 in back taxes (including fines) and has another payment due tomorrow for $2327.83, which I assume will not be paid.

    How do we expect developer/slumlord Maye to get any project off the ground when he is so far behind on taxes?

    I think that these points must be made now and to the City at the hearing on August 13th.

25. Rev Eric Miller says:

    August 1, 2014 at 4:07 am

    Having read the other comments, I must say that YES, Mr Mayes is very arrogant in his demeanor. I also reside near this structure and of all things why doesn’t anyone suggest rehabbing it back to a Church again?
    Well first, no matter what, we must save it from demolition. He can tear down the old house on the property no problem. The Church structure is savable and I believe that the community can rally around saving it, if organized properly. (15 second story on the local news is not enough)

26. Patrick says:

    August 13, 2014 at 4:16 pm

    Looks like we’ve got another Dollar General coming in to add to the charm of our city… Assuming Mr. Mayes can ever pay off his taxes and get approved for funding…

27. Rev Eric Miller says:

    August 13, 2014 at 5:24 pm

    Is that before or after Mayes finishing lining their pockets and stomachs? It’s messed up they played the race card today AND Mayes friend was allowed to speak but I wasn’t allowed as I didn’t know about prior meetings because Mayes wanted it all hush hush what he is doing

28. 644 W Main st says:

    August 14, 2014 at 2:26 pm

    I am so sad

29. Rev Eric Miller says:

    August 14, 2014 at 3:21 pm

    @644 all you can do is pray that he does NOT meet the requirements and HE is forced to sell the property

30. Malcolm says:

    August 14, 2014 at 8:42 pm

    Latest bill = $33,686.79. Mayes did not pay the taxes at the end of July. Why hasn’t the City started to take the buildings?

    Can someone describe what requirements Mayes has? Is it to secure funding, pay off his taxes, etc? He would also have to have the building rezoned, correct?

31. Malcolm says:

    July 14, 2015 at 2:55 pm

    The questions still remain regarding Mayes’s tax debts and the maintenance of the church and adjacent property….

    Maye still owes: $42,156.76.

    The City of Rochester should have taken this property long ago and land banked it. What a shame! Here again, the City of Rochester doing nothing to protect the neighborhood residents and City residents who could have turned the church into something useful — and built on the forthcoming redevelopment of nearby Bulls Head….

    Suspicious fire:

    http://www.rochestercitynewspaper.com/rochester/now-what/Content?oid=2580279

    and

    http://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/2015/06/26/church-fire-rochester/29319857/

Post a Comment...